This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2006-06 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-06 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 New Policy Proposal (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Lenz
slz at baycix.de
Wed Oct 4 16:52:51 CEST 2006
Hi, Gert Doering wrote: > HI, > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:15:14AM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: >> This proposal is to have the RIPE NCC allocate address space to >> Local Internet Registries (LIRs) based on their one-year needs. In >> other words, it suggests setting a maximum allocation period of 12 >> months. > > I agree with Jeroen - the subject is a bit misleading, and the wording > of the summary could also be a bit more clearer. > > Regarding the proposal itself, playing the devil's advocate, I'm not > sure why we want that - "the other registries are changing their > policies so their members have a disadvantage now -- let's make life > more difficult for our members as well?". Global harmonization is > nice, but as the *main* argument for a change that's reducing people's > freedom in planning, I'm always a bit sceptical... i'm with you and your arguments here. Especially since the policies of the other RIRs are all different from each other, and there's only a similiar proposal to harmonise it in one of them. > To better judge the impact on address fragmentation (and speaking > from a LIR's perspective, having too many different allocations *is* > a nuisance - think "reverse DNS", "routing announcements", etc), I'd > like to see some numbers what impact in terms of "how many LIRs would > have received multiple blocks instead of a single contiguous block?" > if the allocation time frame would have changed to "1 year" something > like 5 years ago... According to "b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal", the impact is minimal compared to other DFZ-bloating issues, but i don't have any numbers on it myself. Additionally, i still see no real reason to conserve IPv4 address space, my inofficial point of view is: waste IPv4 addresses so we can go with IPv6 :) All in all, i don't support this proposal at the moment. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-06 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 New Policy Proposal (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]